My main point is really that an era being batting or bowling is so so much dependent on the teams. For reference, the bowling average of the 80s is 33.68 without WI and 32.09 with them. Kinda staggering difference. For reference, it was 31.09 in the 70s and 31.3 in the 90s; 32.7 in the 2000s.
Marshall and McGrath didn't face their best lineups. So therefore they can't be the two best bowlers by this logic.
the 2000s can just pad up on Minnow tests to get bowling averages low, the average when played among the big 8 is in the 34.68
Except no one said Viv isn't a contender and people regularly point out it for Maco and McG as well (also, India in the 2000s were a stronger batting side than Australia).
and that children, is why Trueman is the best.
I don't believe it's controversial to say the 80s without WI were tougher than the 2000s overall, but not really tough in the grand scheme of things, aka, losses it's main allure.
Ftfy
Ok the only contention would be if someone said he faced more ATG bowlers than others. I don't think folks say that.
2000s were easy, so much of the games that decade are lottery runs it's absurd, Kallis and Ponting bashing of WI is easier runs than anything Viv got to make, same with Ban bashing and Zim bashing, even some of the high profile serieses between Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa late in the decades were easy runs with pitful bowling attacks, Viv got at most 1 series with easy runs like that.
oh, what does that bloke average against the best batting lineup of the time (Australia) and the second best (India)?
Dravid and Ponting were pretty close, as were Hayden and Sehwag. The others are debatable, but Sachin early 2000s was still among the best Ever. Add in Laxman and Ganguly, and it's a pretty even match.
Okayyyy, Richard Hadlee
Pakistan or Australia for him???
Exactly that's why we almost penalise 2000s and the batsmen who plundered there like Ponting, Kallis and Dravid. We don't do that to Viv, on the contrary give him points for never playing weaklings or minnows. My whole point is, he doesn't deserve any particular points for the era either when the Era was so heavily leaning towards WI bowling. The no 2 and 3 teams had one ATG top 10 bowler each, and the rest were kinda mid for everyone else.
Hadlee's record in Australia is borderline perfect.
The others aren't debatable at all.
name me one other top 10 Batsmen post 1900 with the exception of maybe Hutton who didn't up his average by making wanker runs against minnow level lineups.
I think saying he faced many high quality bowlers can slip into saying give points for an era. But I don't think that argument is actively used.
Which is what instructs and fuels his peer rating.
Graeme Pollock